WP3/24 SEARCH WORKING PAPER

Maghreb returnee's reintegration, theoretical reading and migration policies

Aomar Ibourk, Amine Chamkhi

May 2014

evaluation. Micro-econometric analysis of integration determinants

Maghreb returnee’s reintegration, theoretical

reading and migration policies evaluation. Micro-

econometric analysis of integration determinants

Aomar IBOURK

Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakesh, Morocco

Amine CHAMKHI L’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS).Paris, France

SEARCH WP03/24

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 2

II. THEORETICAL ELEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 2

III. EVALUATION OF ENTREPRENEURS AND SKILLS OF RESIDENTS ABROAD

INTEGRATION POLICIES, THE CASE OF MOROCCO. ...................................................................... 4

A. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK IN FAVOUR OF THE CMRE INVESTORS. ........ 5

B. MIGRATION AND COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL MEASURES FOR ATTRACTION OF ELITES,

THE SITUATION. ................................................................................................................................ 6

i. INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY CONTEXT OF MAGHREBINE QUALIFIED SKILLS. .............. 6

ii. MEASURES TO ENGAGE AND INVOLVE OF THE EXPATRIATE ELITES IN THE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ANALYSIS AND PROSPECTS. .................................................... 7

IV. THE DATA ................................................................................................................................... 9

V. ASSUMPTIONS: ............................................................................................................................. 9

VI. INTEGRATION FACTORS: PRELIMINARY RESULTS. ......................................................... 10

A. DIFFERENCE OF INTENTIONS BASED ON THE NATURE OF THE RETURN. ..................... 10

B. AT PROFILES: ........................................................................................................................... 11

C. DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO THE DURATION OF STAY, INSTALLATION AGE IN

RETURN TO THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN. ....................................................................................... 11

D. ORIGIN COUNTRY. .................................................................................................................. 13

E. THE LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS. ....................................................................... 13

VII. LOGISTIC REGRESSION: GENERALIZED AND ORDERED. ............................................... 14

A. THE MODEL .............................................................................................................................. 14

B. RESULTS: ................................................................................................................................. 14

i. ECONOMIC AND PSYCHOLOGIC UTILITIES. .................................................................... 14

ii. MIGRATION BACKGROUND. .............................................................................................. 15

VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 16

IX. ANNEX .......................................................................................................................................... 17

X. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 23

SEARCH WP03/24

I. INTRODUCTION

The present paper aims to specify the determinants of post back re-emigration. It seeks to

identify the effect of the composition of migration path on the degree of integration of North

African migrants when they return to their home societies. We started from the idea that

return migration is not a homogeneous entity in its structure. Then, aspiration (in the

psychological sense) and utility (socioeconomic sense) withdrawing from the return vary in

function of many factors, difficult to identify due to the heterogeneity of profiles and the

complexity of migration biographies. In general, the theoretical reading divided into five

separate groups the reasons leading to break the earnings differential between the host and

birth country.

Sociological, demographic or economic literature on the reintegration of migrants suffers

from deficiencies in both theoretical and empirical sides. The present paper attempts to

determine, in a post migration angle, the socio-economic and socio-cultural reintegration

difficulties impeding the sustainability of installation process in originals societies. The

objective is to try to identify factors that may increase the risk of re-emigration.

II. THEORETICAL ELEMENTS

Few writings have attempted to determine the difficulties associated with successful

reintegration after years spent abroad. G.Gmelch (1980) distinguishes two types of

rehabilitation: the first is an integration socioeconomic level, through the achievement of

sustainable elements for installation as finding a job, buying a home, and/or investing in a

promising project... The second criterion is the psychological level, it is provided by the

feeling of well-being felt by the returnee, Gmelch add that the feeling of satisfaction /

dissatisfaction affects the integration process despite successful economic reintegration. On

his side Davanzo (1976) concluded that the maintenance of social relations between the

migrant and his entourage left in the country of origin (parents, family, friends) involved in

easing the process of integration at the social level and then allow to minimize the psychic

cost of return. The field work of Taylor (1976) on returning Jamaicans migrants go to the

sense that nearly 61% expressed their dissatisfaction experience back even though their

economic situation is much more favorable than their indigenous homologous. The same

sense of disillusionment is detected by Paine (1974) on returning Turkish migrants.

Gmelch explains this state of dissatisfaction by the lack of a return project integrating the two

aspects previously cited. On the one hand, the not updating of the socio-cultural developments

during the period of absence of the migrant drive to the loss of codes and customs those hold

the original society. On the other, the break between a Western lifestyle that can be qualified

as efficient in terms of response to the needs of life (administration, transportation, works ...

etc...), against another style of developing society suffering from several shortcomings and

disabled. Dissatisfaction arises therefore from lifestyle that migrant tries somehow to

transpose into his new life with no guarantee of its success, this fact creates frustrations and

possibly re-emigration.

SEARCH WP03/24

Another difficulty also affects the process of reintegration of migrants. Indeed, the family

dimension (wife and children) plays an additional brake adjustment that includes the activity

of the parent and the children's age. Russel (1978) states that when there are children in the

schooling process in the host country the project of return becomes more complicated, while

the integration of children not reaching school age is less complicated.

The feeling of well-being within the community of the country of origin cannot be separated

from the fulfillment of favorable economic conditions. For part of the return migrants, is to

find work in the original company that remains the main obstacle that must be overcome

before one can aspire returning. Economic and political conditions of the country of origin

may affect the return process by making attractive some sectors rather than others. In this

context the human capital acquired overseas finds himself a prisoner of the choices of

migrants. Collection and adherence to information networks are therefore a crucial step in the

quest for business opportunities in the country of origin.

The example Y.Catherine Ira.Gang and M.Yun (1999) confirms this assumption. Through a

panel survey of Hungarian households in the beginning of 1992, the authors found significant

differences between Hungarian migrants and their non-migrants homologous in term of gain

by gender and place of installation (OECD / Non-OECD). In effect, heavy industry and

construction in which Hungarian migrants worked massively during their stay abroad does not

offer premium pay for foreign experience, while for women who have acquired expertise in

sectors such as financial services, education and health have seen their wages increase

compared to women who remained in the country and operating in the same sectors. The

authors explain this by the divergent between sectors and the opening up policy in Hungary

during the early 90s, which has generated a new demand for labor that is able to streamline

the introduction of the Hungarian economy in the market economy.

For O.Arowolo (2000) Rehabilitation in the community of origin requires the prior

establishment of a hosting strategy focuses on four dimensions:

The first is expressed by the preparation of the draft back through looking for information that

might overcome the difficulties of rehabilitation. Membership information takes many forms

and depends on the purpose behind the return. It may be the collection of professional

information, particularly with regard to the investment opportunities available in the country

of origin (Athukorala, 1986), or in other cases, the ability to explore absorption of local labor

market in terms of attractiveness of skills trained. Other aspects of project preparation for re-

entry can be social, including the provision of information on language training for children

born abroad and entry preparation in the school system of the country of origin (Dumon,

1976).

The second aspect is at the collection of information that can better assimilate the structure of

returning migrants. These are the features pertaining to the demographic context (age, sex,

level of education or skills acquired), social and familial context (marital status, number of

children ...), professional and financial situation (type of work performed abroad savings

migrant return, ownership), emigration patterns (migration for study, work, family), and the

SEARCH WP03/24

main country of residence. Scoping of these elements allows a better understanding of

personal needs which affect the easing of economic and social integration.

The third element which refers Arowolo is social integration. Adjustment to the sociocultural

environment involves a modification of lifestyle and an understanding of the codes and

customs of the society of origin. The adaptation process can be more or less successful

depending on a multitude of factors, such as duration of stay abroad, age at departure, the

degree of integration into the host society, the intensity of links with the country of origin, the

family environment and the extent of the network and relationships in the original contry. At

the institutional level, the state also plays an important role in the success of integration of

returnees through the establishment of institutions capable of meeting the challenges of social

integration of migrants and their descendants. The scope of these institutions should be

extended to meet the needs of different categories of returnees, including:

a) The creation and promotion of employment.

b) Awareness of policy development and social change.

c) The provision of education, vocational training, health services and social assistance.

d) Counseling and career guidance.

e) Providing welfare and assistance to retirees.

f) Rehabilitation of disabled persons.

III. EVALUATION OF ENTREPRENEURS AND SKILLS OF

RESIDENTS ABROAD INTEGRATION POLICIES, THE CASE

OF MOROCCO.

Due to its strong community, of 4.5 million, resident abroad, and to the important role of

transfers of this community at the balance of macroeconomic aggregates, Morocco seems to

adopt a national strategy to imply CMRE in economic and social national developing. In fact,

besides transfers, CMRE can be an engine of growth through two additional channels:

1. The impact of the CMRE sectorial investments on creating jobs, and increasing wealth

(GDP).

2. Mobilization of Moroccan, residents abroad, skills in the development of synergies

between Morocco and the rest of the world.

The return can therefore create an additional dynamism, at the local level, if actions were

channeled optimally. In this respect, Morocco attaches particular intent to its diaspora

established in the world. For this interest, four institutional structures manage and support the

CMRE issues:

1. The Ministry of Moroccans Resident Abroad.

SEARCH WP03/24

2. The Hassan II Foundation for Moroccans living abroad.

3. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, Directorate of Consular and Social

Affairs.

4. The Consultative Council of Moroccans Abroad

A. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK IN FAVOUR OF THE CMRE

INVESTORS.

Moroccan law grants the CEMR who wants to create an investment in the country a double

advantage, from one side they have the rights granted to Moroccan resident (freedom of

investment and acquisition, access to loans in dirhams, offering care and education ...), from

the other they have the same advantages granted investors in Morocco. Among the key

features set for foreign investors we found:

Importing and exporting of currency.

Opening of convertible accounts.

Transferring of returns on investments.

Transfers of the investments liquidation or sale funds, including capital gains.

Exemption from import duties on capital goods for any investment exceeding 200

million dirhams including the import VAT for companies with less than 36 months of

existence.

Legal systems attempt to provide CEMR investors by providing flexibility of entry and exit of

capital invested and capital gains from their investment. Double membership also makes

benefit the CEMR from the government initiatives to encourage investment for Moroccan

residents through the pact of support to SMEs / SMIs / TPE, and the device Moukawalati.

Other initiatives are also dedicated to the Moroccan diaspora. We can thus identify the

following:

Facilitate Business Creation in Morocco, launched in September 2009, the goal is to

encourage the involvement of Moroccans living in France, Germany and the

Netherlands to promote economic development and job creation in Morocco in

partnership with local and foreign partners through weaving a network of Moroccan

euro cooperation, particularly in the regions of birth.

The initiative Migration and Economic Development in the Oriental region (MIDEO),

launched in July 2008 and funded by the European Union and Germany, the office

aims to promote a network of contacts with Moroccan located in Germany and to

support potential investors in setting up projects (business plan, administrative

procedures, bank loan ... etc..).

SEARCH WP03/24

The Regional Investment Fund of Oriental (FIRO) is an initiative that was created in

partnership with public / private institutions; the objective is to develop the Oriental

region by providing entrepreneurs, a background investment of MAD 300 million to

partially finance projects in the region.

Other measures participate in the MRE encouraging to come and invest in their country of

origin, including the Regional Investment Centres (CRI) located in almost all Moroccan cities

and whose role is to support the creation of enterprises from upstream to downstream through

the simplification of administrative procedures (single window) and guidance and assistance

(financial, business, legal framework for SMEs / SMIs ... etc..).

The scarcity of statistics on the involvement of the CEMR investments is another factor that

prevents the measurement of the effectiveness of the undertaken actions, however cutting

several sources of information (surveys, census return, the statistics Office Changes, and

dedicated studies) shows a mixed involvement of returnees. So Statistics of Moroccan Office

of Changes recorded a marked increase in the total amount of investments of Moroccans

Living Abroad, a growth of over 170% between 2005 and 2008, however, the share of these

investments, registering an average share of 1.97% over the same period, is negligible

compared to Foreign Direct Investment.

The sectorial distribution of investments is characterized by a wide disparity according to

available information sources. This difference is mainly due to the assimilation of the building

as an investment in its own right, which explains the high proportion of statements of

investment in real estate according to some sources (INSEA Survey and the Office of

Changes). Moreover, the sectorial distribution of investments by region indicates an

adaptation of the investments to regional specificities; in other words there is a sectorial

selectivity conditioned by own comparative advantage of each region (tourism, industry,

trading, construction ...). However, this suggestion is to take with tongs since it does not have

an exhaustive list of investment sectors according to the regional breakdown.

The policy of attraction for investors from the Moroccan Community Resident Abroad

displays a desire to involve the Moroccan diaspora. We note that through the multiplication of

initiatives undertaken at national level (Moukawalati pact support SMEs / SMIs) or regional

(CRI MIDEO, FIRO ...).

B. MIGRATION AND COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL MEASURES FOR

ATTRACTION OF ELITES, THE SITUATION.

i. INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY CONTEXT OF MAGHREBINE QUALIFIED

SKILLS.

The beneficial contribution of migration on the Maghreb countries via transfers may be offset

by the enhancement of the mobility of skilled labor. Indeed, the acceleration of international

trade and investment has been accompanied by increased mobility of skilled labor, "The data

show that changes in the proportion of international immigrants residents in the most

developed countries is very similar to that of trade ..." (Docquier 2007).

SEARCH WP03/24

Docquier and Marfouk (2005) were calculating the mobility rate of 175 countries in 1990 and

195 in 2000. Empirical work of two researchers has evaluated quantitatively the magnitude of

the brain drain. They found that the stock of immigrants in OECD countries grew by 50%

during the nineties, this increase hides disparities by education level, and nearly 70% of the

increase relates skilled workers against only 30% for unskilled (Docquier and Marfouk 2005).

The Maghreb region is not immune to the international context of the mobility of skilled

labor. The use of the base DM06 (Docquier and Marfouk) has made it possible to clarify the

scope of the Maghreb mobility in the world and especially in the OECD countries. Figure 1

shows that the rate of mobility of persons with a higher educational level (All tertiary) is

significantly higher than that of people with a primary education (All primary) or secondary

(All Secondary); and this for the three Maghreb countries in 1990 and 2000. Furthermore we

see that Morocco is marked by a high rate of mobility of persons with a higher level in 1990

and 2000. Thus, according to Docquier and Marfouk over than 150,000 Moroccans who have

an advanced degree are residents at the OECD in 2000. During the 1990s and 2000 the stock

of Moroccan emigrants increased by nearly 50.7%, those with a higher degree grew by almost

75% (from 88 763 to 155 994) while changing emigrants having a primary level has increased

by 39% (from 550 039 à 764 738 individuals).

FIGURE 1: RATE OF MOBILITY IN NORTH AFRICA AND THE WORLD BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION IN 1990

AND 2000.

Source : DM06, Docquier et Marfouk

The magnitude of international mobility of skilled labor in the Maghreb region, particularly in

Morocco, encourages a migration policy to counteract the adverse effects caused by the brain

drain, especially through an attractive policy to mobilize exiled elites in the new economic

transition.

ii. MEASURES TO ENGAGE AND INVOLVE OF THE EXPATRIATE ELITES IN

THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ANALYSIS AND PROSPECTS.

SEARCH WP03/24

The last Moroccan 2004 census indicates that almost 151,281 Moroccans living abroad have

returned permanently to their country. The distribution table of returnees according to age and

level of education shows two positive assets. On one side a little less than a third of returning

migrants have a higher level of education (the highest level of all studies combined

proportion). On the other a young population comprised mainly of active people.

TABLE 1: ACTIVITY RATE OF MIGRANTS TO RETURN BY EDUCATION LEVEL.

Activity rate by level of education

Proportion of return migrants by level of

education

nothingness 34,0% 23,1%

primary 58,7% 20,6%

secondary 74,9% 27,1%

superior 93,0% 29,2% 2004 census.

Awareness of the Moroccan public authorities regarding the potential to extract from its

expatriate elites was premature, in 1990 Morocco adopted with the support of UNDP (United

Nations Development Program) a program called TOKTEN (Transfer of Knowledge though

Expatriate Nationals) that "The goal ... is to support the Government's efforts to strengthen

technical capacity in key sectors and institutions, the establishment of a mechanism to

Moroccan specialists to contribute effectively to economic and social development

"(Bouoiyour, 1995). This experience has not had the desired effect. Apart from a few

meetings (1990, 1993, 1994 and 1996) no realization of TOKTEN project succeeded. More

recently (2007) the Moroccan political power has attempted to create a national strategy

named FINCOME (International Forum of Moroccan Skills Abroad). The project aims to

identify and strengthen the contact between the homeland and Moroccan expatriates through

the use of Moroccan expertise in deficit sectorial areas of human resources. The stated

objectives of the project FINCOME are:

1. The creation of a database of Moroccan skills abroad.

2. The creation of a transnational network of Moroccan expatriate skills and drainage of

knowledge and technology, particularly through expertise aids via the same network.

Management and effective monitoring of FINCOME program is provided by two cells, the

first is under the supervision of a public body, it is the responsibility of the Moroccan

community resident abroad (MCCMRE) authority, second is composed of cells with

management and monitoring of public character organizations such ANAPEC CNRST,

NHRI, and R & D or private such CGEM. Everything is supervised by a Senior Coordinator

who ensures the link between the administrative level of the Executive Committee and

Orientation (CDO) whose role is to set the broad guidelines and fund the device in its entirety,

and the Coordination and monitoring Committee (CSC), whose role is to ensure the

monitoring of the device and finally the cells mentioned above.

Despite the ambitions and political pronouncements in favor of attracting highly skilled elites,

no tangible result has been achieved. The results are very mixed especially in terms of lack of

SEARCH WP03/24

measures and studies tracked on the return of skilled labor in Morocco as well as the

modalities of its participation in growth. This failure of the project has led the authorities to

undertake a project to relaunch FINCOME by strengthening its operating structure by human

and financial resources and by providing it with more stringent measures (communication,

studies, plans and organization shares ...).

IV. THE DATA

The data used are from MIREM, a survey conducted in 2006/2007 in the Maghreb region on a

sample of 992 immigrants who chose to return to their home countries (Algeria: 332

Morocco: 330 Tunisia 330). The questionnaire structure tries to draw a biographical analysis

by determining the different stages by which the migrant went on during his career, from the

preparation of the migration project, through its realization, installation in the host country

and infinite return. The richness of the environment (566 variables to be mobilized), and the

diversity of profiles (national / regional dimension), makes the investigation MIREM an

excellent platform for empirical studies on effective mechanisms for the return of the

Maghreb emigrants. The structure of the questionnaire consisted of three steps:

1. Situation in the country of origin before departure.

2. Stay in the main country of immigration.

3. Return to country of origin and installation.

V. ASSUMPTIONS:

As previously announced we have divided our groups based on patterns of flow and return

(Table 2). Return profiles are thus distinguished by the following segmentation:

TABLE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS OF RETURN FROM THE SURVEY MIREM.

Return profiles frequency Percent

Back after studies 47 4,7%

Failed migration 205 20,7%

Investment in origin country 150 15,1%

Forced return 231 23,3%

Preference of origin country 263 26,5%

other 96 9,7%

total 992 100,0%

One hypothesis suggests that the integration of returnee depends on the success of a number

of factors and elements specific to each group. Thus we can assume that the principal

aspiration of the groups returned after studies and those searching for investments is primarily

driven by the pursuit of economic utilities (work, return on investments in the country of

origin). While interest withdrawing behind the return to the country of origin preference is

mainly psychological (traditions, climate, family, etc ...). Profiles returned after failed

SEARCH WP03/24

migration and/or forced return does not have the same goals as their migration project was

unfinished (forced return or inadequacy in the host country).

A second approach lets us assume that the installation intentions in the country of origin are

indicative of the success or failure of integration. Decision of residence is also closely linked

to each profile goals and aspirations satisfaction. Migrants who intend to reside in a

"Permanent way" are supposed to have passed their social integration, the opposite is true for

migrants who declared a "Provisional" return, while migrants who reported with "Do not

know" are for their part supposedly being undecided or develop their reintegration project.

VI. INTEGRATION FACTORS: PRELIMINARY RESULTS.

Intentions of residence within the society of origin may reflect a certain satisfaction or

dissatisfaction. The installation intentions distribution indicates that nearly 54% of migrants

said they had an intention to reside permanently in their country of origin, against only 20%

temporarily and 26% are undecided. The distribution of residence intentions hides disparities

depending on several factors that we develop below.

A. DIFFERENCE OF INTENTIONS BASED ON THE NATURE OF THE

RETURN.

The structure of the MIREM survey offers two types of returnee:

The first is considered as desired based on a voluntary decision by which the way back

was realized. Within this group we can identify several differentiated subsets

according to motivations. It was thus five of our six profiles (table 2). All of these

profiles represent almost 77% of respondents.

The second type is a return migration enforced or involuntary, the main difference

from the first type is that the return does not result from an individual decision but

result from the occurrence of one or more circumstances that forced migrants to break

their migratory project. This group differs from the profile "failed migration" by his

submission to external constraints that have affected the migration project and were

therefore forced to return to his country of origin. This group forms 23% of all people

surveyed.

The distinction between the two sets is of crucial importance in the interpretation of intentions

of residence. The constraint character that takes the profile "forced return" proves to be a

decisive factor in the decision of residence. Forced return prevents utilities optimization to

extract from the migration project and also hampers the process of migration costs

compensation, which drives migrants to renew its migration attempt to achieve its objectives.

Table of the intentions of residence (see Table 6) indicates that over 52% of respondents plan

to re-emigrate, the highest rate of all profiles combined.

SEARCH WP03/24

B. AT PROFILES:

The table below shows that, in an average higher than 54%, all groups have declared a

permanent installation intention except the "Investment in origin country" and "forced return"

(53% and 28%). Moreover these two groups recorded the highest proportions of temporary

residence intentions. They also illustrate the highest level of modality "Do not know" with the

group "Failed migration".

A recent empirical study F.Gubert and C.Norman (2008) on the same survey revealed that

administrative burdens are at the top of the difficulties encountered by investors, followed by

excessive competition and lack of capital. Regarding the non-investors, access to finance is

considered as the biggest obstacle in the three countries, especially in Morocco. We can

suggest that the investment climate in the Maghreb affects the integration of returnees,

including entrepreneurs who want to take advantage of investment opportunities in their

countries of origin.

TABLE 3: DRAWN BACK PROFILES AND INTENTIONS. Back

after studies

Failed migration

Investment in origin

country

Forced return

Preference of origin country

other Total

Permanent way

68% 58% 53% 28% 69% 60% 54%

provisional 13% 12% 19% 36% 14% 19% 20%

Do not know 19% 30% 28% 36% 17% 21% 26%

C. DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO THE DURATION OF STAY,

INSTALLATION AGE IN RETURN TO THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

Table 8 shows a positive correlation between on the one hand, the intentions of permanent

residence in the country of origin, and on the other hand, the residence time spent abroad, the

age of the respondent at the time investigation and duration of residence in the country since

the return. Intentions of residence in a «provisional" and / or "do not know» are generally

negatively correlated with the three variables mentioned above whatever the nature of the

group returns.

Whatever the type of return (forced or voluntary) we see that the longer the stay abroad is

growing more than sustainable the intention of residence in the country increases. However,

differences were detected between the two groups returned. It can thus be a significant

disparities in the group which have undergone a forced return where the distribution of the

workforce is highly concentrated on a range of one to nine years of age with more than 69%

of the workforce while all staff who have stayed more thirty years does not exceed 1.8%.

A highly significant correlation was found between the age of the migrant at the time of

inquiry and intentions of residence. Over the age of the respondent, the higher the proportion

of statements reside permanently increases. It is thus noted that only 27 % of the workforce

(all groups) belonging to the age group [17-29 years [intend to reside permanently. This

proportion rises to 44% among the age group [30-39years [then 55% for [40-49 years [67% in

SEARCH WP03/24

[50-59 [and finally it reaches more than 71% in 60 years and older. At the breakdown by type

of return, we see the same trend, but more settled in the group who chose voluntary return.

For example, more than half (51%) of the respondents, belonging to the age group [30-39 [,

said they intend to reside permanently against a quarter (26%) of the respondents belonging to

the group of forced return. In contrast, the intention of temporary residence, and / or

undecided, reflect a progressively decrease as the age of respondents increases.

The installation time elapsed since the return to the country of origin follows the same trend

as the length of stay abroad and the age of the respondent. More installation time goes on,

more declarations of intent temporary installation and / or indecisive decrease and that

whatever the nature of the return. Regarding the distribution of intentions of residence

depending on the nature of return, we see the same trend with respect to the three variables;

however, the main difference is in the proportions of intentions for permanent residence in

each group. Thus, although the growth of the latter remains constant with respect to age, the

duration of stay abroad and the country of origin after return increases, the share of intentions

for permanent residence is the majority in the group of voluntary return, as it is around 61%,

whereas it does not exceed 26% in the group of forced return. In contrast, the intention of

temporary residence and the undecided are equitably distributed among this group with 36%,

while in the group of undecided voluntary return form almost a quarter of respondents, against

only 15% of claimants for a temporary residence.

The descriptive analysis showed that the chances of lasting presence in the country depend on

a number of factors, among them, there are in particular length of stay spent abroad, the

period of post-installation return and the age of the respondent. Over the first two variables

are big more the chances of permanent installation in the country are increasing. The same is

seen for age at return, in fact, be older increases the chance to settle permanently in the

country of origin in contrast to younger respondents.

FIGURE 2: AGE, DURATION AND DURATION OF STAY BACK IN MEDIUM AND DEPENDING ON THE

NATURE OF RETURN.

Retour volontaire

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

Age moyen au moment de

l'enquête

Durée de séjour moyenne Durée de retour Moyenne

Age

Permanente Provisoire Ne sait pas

Retour forcé

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

Age moyen au moment de

l'enquête

Durée de séjour moyenne Durée de retour Moyenne

Age

Permanente Provisoire Ne sait pas

SEARCH WP03/24

D. ORIGIN COUNTRY.

The distribution table of intentions of residence by country of birth shows a divergence

between the three Maghreb countries. It is thus noted that only 45% of Moroccan returning

migrants intend to reside permanently in their country of origin, against respectively 60% and

54% of Algerian and Tunisian migrants. The low share of "permanent" residence intentions

through the Moroccan migrant return raises a certain number of questions about the mode of

integration in this category (see Table 7).

Distribution of return intentions by country and by type of return indicates an

overrepresentation of forced migration back to Morocco (30%) compared to Algeria (20.2%)

and Tunisia (19.7%). This difference, however, not explain the weakness of intention for

permanent residence. So whatever its nature (voluntary or forced return), Moroccan migrants

are characterized by a lower proportion of intentions for permanent residence (55.4%, 22.4%)

compared to Algerian migrants (66.4%, 35.8%) and Tunisian (62.6%, 28.1%). They also have

the largest proportion of intentions temporary residence (18.9%, 38.8%).

E. THE LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS.

The appreciation and satisfaction of return remains dependent on a strong segmentation

between the two groups of voluntary and forced return. However, this fragmentation hides in

it another structured subjective factors closely related to the migratory experience.

In general, the migration experience overseas is perceived as beneficial in both the group of

voluntary return (81.6%) and forced (76%). This subjective perception is reflected in the

beneficial contribution provided at the acquisition of knowledge or at least at the level of

enrichment of the personality of the emigrant himself (development and learning, customs and

traditions, human relations ... etc...).

At the perception of return satisfaction, we see an expected contrast between the two groups.

Thus, almost three-quarters of voluntary return of migrants expressed their satisfaction against

a little more than a third of forced return. The trend is offset in the case of return

dissatisfaction, and only 15.3% of respondents in the first group have expressed their

discontent against 45.2% for the second. Table crossing the distribution of ratings (Table 10)

post back and intentions of residence shows a general satisfaction except in the group

reporting a forced return for temporary residence or does not know (respectively 19.5% and

28%) .

The perception of satisfaction of the conditions of life post back is another form of distinction

between the two groups. More than half (53.4%) of returnees wanted to believe that their

situation has improved in the country, against one quarter (25.5%) holding a relative

deterioration of living conditions. These estimates are reversed in almost the same proportions

in the group of forced return where just over half (51.3%) report experiencing a deterioration

of living standards against a little less than a quarter (23.3%) holding an improvement living

conditions.

SEARCH WP03/24

Satisfaction or dissatisfaction of return is a subjective matter and constrained by the

conditions under which the project of return was operated. Table 10 clearly shows a

fragmentation between two types of differentiated projects according to their degree of

achievement.

VII. LOGISTIC REGRESSION: GENERALIZED AND ORDERED.

A. THE MODEL

Theoretical analysis on returning migrants at the level of psychological and socio-economic

integration factors, and evaluation of policies undertaken for attracting migrants back in the

Maghreb: do they exert an influence on the fluidity of integration of migrants in their country

of origin?

We suggest that the intentions of residence are indicative of the success or failure of

integration in the country of origin. For this, we want to test the influence of a set of

explanatory factors on the intentions of residence. The response variable is polytomous, it is

considered as ordinal decomposed into three terms (J = 3) for "Permanent" residence,

"Temporary", "Do not know". We have chosen not to dichotomize responses modalities as it

is estimated that the estimators of the explanatory factors on each response modality is

different.

Given the constraints of the response variable Y, we chose to apply a model of ordinal

multinomial logistic regression. The overall formula of generalized equations is as follows:

Log Pi/Pk+1=ß'iX, i{1,…,k+1}

K +1 is the number of terms of the response variable.

The choice of selection and removal of explanatory factors was focused on the stepwise

method which is a combination of two procedures. At each step, the stepwise method checks

whether it is possible to add a variable (FORWARD): If this is the case, it calculates the

parameters and their standard deviations. If one or more variables are not significant

individually, elimination following the principles of the procedure (BACKWARD) occurs and

so on. In this procedure, two thresholds are involved: the acceptance threshold of SLE

(SLENTRY =) variable and the output threshold SLS (SLSTAY =). To be a compromise

between statistical requirements and sociological interpretation, thresholds of statistical

significance was set at 0.05, 0.1 and finally 0.15. Otherwise, too severe threshold 0.05 could

spread some interesting variables for the model and the statistical significance of which

becomes more difficult to achieve with his rank selection.

B. RESULTS:

i. ECONOMIC AND PSYCHOLOGIC UTILITIES.

SEARCH WP03/24

The results of the generalized logistic regression (Table 11, Table 12) show that the intentions

of residence in the country are dependent on a multitude of factors. The spectrum varies

between subjective and economic variables (satisfaction with the return, estimating the

improvement of post back life judgment on the experience spent abroad, looking for work,

labor compensation, access to housing, assistance in the country of origin) or dependent to

migration context in which the migrant return (migration profile, length of stay, duration of

stay in the country, belonging to the country of origin).

The model confirms the hypothesis that the decision to return lasting residence is substantially

related to the achievement and realization of objectives achieved at the beginning and during

the migratory journey. An immigrant who was forced to return to the country of origin is

more likely to declare an intention to temporary residence, this is what the model shows

where you notice a respondent belonging to the group of "forced return" a 2.7 * and 2.5 *

more likely to report an intention of residence "provisional" or "do not know" rather than

"permanent" compared to a migrant who "returned after completion of his studies."

In the same direction, the installation conditions depend on a set of criteria such as the

provision of professional opportunities in the local labor market, fears of return to

unemployment or housing conditions to be met. In fact, job seekers have 1.919 *** likely to

report an intention of residence "temporary" rather than "permanent" than those who do not

seek work. Fears of job instability promote 2.7 **of "provisional" residence declaration rather

than" permanent ", it is the same for the difficulties in housing, for example 1.907 **.

In line with the theoretical elements, the model results indicate that the enchantment return is

synonymous with sustainable intention of residence (for example we can say that there's

1,498** more likely to report an intention of "permanent" residence rather than "temporary"

in the group said "happy return" mode as the group stating "indifferent to return").

ii. MIGRATION BACKGROUND.

The empirical and theoretical results agree that the period spent abroad significantly

influences the intentions of residence. The longer it is the more useful procured decreases, the

return occurs when the marginal utility to extract from the country of origin is higher than that

obtained abroad. The model results indicate that a short term stay (between 0 and nine years

of age) promotes the chances of declaration of intention to "provisional" 1.408* time rather

than "permanent" compared to those who stayed longer (between ten and twenty-nine years of

age), the model unfortunately does not allow to push the analysis further due to the lack of

significance of the other parameters.

The period since the return has another significant effect on the intentions of residence. One

can say that the chances of declaring a "permanent" residence increases with the time elapsed

since the return period. The break with the socio-cultural ties and the acquisition of new

knowledge during live abroad require social and cultural rehabilitation of the migrant, it

actually requires a period of adaptation to ease insertion and the assimilation of new social

codes country.

SEARCH WP03/24

The model results indicate another relative specificity in the investigation, which relates to the

differing intentions of residence on the basis of belonging to the country of origin. It is thus

noted that the Moroccan and Tunisian returnees are more likely to declare intentions of

residence "provisional" or "do not know" rather than the reference modality relative to their

Algerian counterparts (respectively 2.091 ** 2.062 * **, 2.83*** and 1.47 *). Analysis of the

mean length of stay spent abroad and the mean Age in return show that Algerian migrants

have a higher average age (49.2 years) and spent a longer average length of stay (17.7 years)

compared to their Tunisian (46.9/16.8 years) or Moroccan counterparts (40.9/12.68 years).

Indeed, it is not unreasonable to suggest considering the results to take into account the length

of stay past as an indicator of successful integration.

Finally, migration policy has a significant influence on the intentions of residence. We can

thus say that emigrated who was assisted by local authorities of their country of origin is more

likely to stay permanently than one that has not benefited (the chances of declaring

“permanent” modality is 1.676 ** and 1.557 ** time higher than declaring" temporary "or" do

not know "for an assisted person in return rather than a person unassisted).

VIII. CONCLUSION

The empirical and theoretical study on the conditions for successful social integration in the

Maghreb countries has shown that it is conditioned by a number of factors. Firstly the

returning population is not homogeneous in its structure. A retiree does not have the same

motivations to return as a graduate or an investor. In other words, the marginal utility to

extract from the migration project in the group of voluntary returnee having chosen to settle

permanently in the country has been completed. Go to this aspiration, requires the

establishment of a return project focused on installation conditions, the most iconic symbol of

attachment remains the acquisition of a property, however the range of requirements to

achieve dependent of the purpose behind the return route. For example, in the case of a return

after study, the provision of employment opportunities on the labor market is the main

condition. The satisfaction of these conditions has a cost and it seems to be amortized when

the emigrant pass a number of years within the host country in order to accumulate enough

capital (physical or human). Length of stay in the host country seems to be the medium

through which the accumulation of capital and the marginal utility affect the performance of

the migration project and preparation.

Statements of residence temporarily or undecided express another form of evaluation and

discernment between a utility provided by the installation within the host country and another

from the country of origin. For the group that underwent a forced return is clearly noticed

dissatisfaction of local living conditions, especially for migrants who reported for temporary

residence and undecided. This refusal of integration is the consequence of the failure of the

migration project, the cost of it was not sufficiently compensated by the utility achieved, add

to this the psychological pressure on the environment by migrating compared to its

homologues returned back home with all the elements of success overseas (car, building,

money ...).

SEARCH WP03/24

Migration policies for social and economic integration must take into consideration the

profiles specificity to better target the needs and expectations of each category. Maghreb

Return migration displays another characteristic, the forced return; the study showed that this

category is less likely to have a successful social integration in the country of origin. Several

factors justify the need to re-emigration, including social weight and non-compensation of the

migration cost. However, it is noted in the three countries a complete lack of assistance and

psychological support to illegal immigrants device, as well as the absence of aid

employability policy. The study also revealed that flowed into the country since the return

period to help smooth the transition to the new / old home society (Gmelch 1980).

IX. ANNEX

TABLE 4: INVESTMENTS OF CMRE BREAKDOWN BY ECONOMIC SECTOR sectors Sources

Real estate

Industry Commerce Tourism Agriculture Other

services Other

CERED 2003 survey1 5,80% 9,20% 39,10% .. 12,40% 27,70% 5,80%

INSEA Survey on MRA 1998 2 83,70% 1,30% 4,90% 1,40% 7,50% 1,10% 1,20%

Exchange Office 2008 73,92% 8,17% 3,35% 14,15% .. .. 0,41%

Fondation Hassan II survey 2004

.. 21% 10,90% .. 23,90% 44,10% 44,20%

Regional

Investment

Center

Tadla 21,41% 38,74% .. 39,23% .. .. 0,62%

Agadir 5% 5% 19% 33% .. 23% 15%

Fès .. 14% 7% 68% .. .. 12%

TABLE 5 REASONS OF RETURN AND MYRIAM QUESTIONNAIRE BY THE THEORETICAL CONCEPTS.

Codes Modalités Regroupement

1 Job insecurity in the country of immigration Failed migration for economic reasons

6 Integration problems in the country of immigration Failed migration for integration reasons

14 Unfavorable socio-cultural environment

3 Familial problems in the country of origin Failed migration for familial reasons

4 Familial problems in the country of host

11 Graduation in the country of immigration Returning back after studies

12 End of training

5 Health problems

Preference for origin country 7 retirement

13 Nostalgia for country and traditions

8 Business management Investement in the country of roigin

9 Projets creation

2 To receive returning aids Temporary migration

10 End of my employment contract in the country of host

15 other Other reasons

99 Don’t know

-1 not concerned Forced return

Theoretical regrouping of the terms of issue q_o1.

1 Centre for demographic Studies and Research.

2 National Institute of Statistics and Applied economy.

SEARCH WP03/24

TABLE 6: INTENTIONS AND PROFILES IN RETURN.

Are you planning now to go abroad again?

Frequency

Migration back

Stay Don’t know

Return after studies 31,9% 44,7% 23,4%

failedmigration 30,9% 42,6% 26,5% Investment in the origin

country 44,2% 38,1% 17,7%

Forced return 52,4% 29,9% 17,7% Preference for origin country 34,1% 45,3% 20,5%

Temporary migration and other

36,8% 43,2% 20,0%

Total 39,4% 39,8% 20,8% TABLE 7: INTENTIONS OF RESIDENCE BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

On your return, did you intend to stay so...?

Frecquency Permanent temporary Don’t know Total

Morocco 45,3% 25,0% 29,7% 33,3%

Algeria 60,2% 13,6% 26,2% 33,5%

Tunisia 55,8% 21,2% 23,1% 33,3%

Total 53,9% 19,8% 26,3% 100%

TABLEAU 1 : DISTRIBUTION RÉSIDENCE INTENTIONS BY TIME SPENT ABROAD, AGE AT SURVEYING TIME AND TIME SPENT IN THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

TABLEAU 2: RÉSIDENCE INTENTIONS BY COUNTRY ET RETURNING NATURE.

Nature of

residence

Morocco Algeria Tunisia

Volontary

return

Forced

return Total

Volontary

return

Forced

return Total

Volontary

return

Forced

return Total

Permanent 55,4% 22,4% 45,3% 66,4% 35,8% 60,2% 62,6% 28,1% 55,8%

temporary 18,9% 38,8% 25,0% 9,4% 29,9% 13,6% 16,7% 39,1% 21,2%

SEARCH WP03/24

Don’t know 25,7% 38,8% 29,7% 24,2% 34,3% 26,2% 20,6% 32,8% 23,1%

Total 70,0% 30,0% 100,0% 79,8% 20,2% 100,0% 80,3% 19,7% 100,0%

TABLEAU 3: APPRECIATION OF EXPERIENCE REQUIRED AND SATISFACTION AFTER RETURN

What represent the experience required abroad for you…?

Volontary return Forced return

Permanent temporary Don’t know Total Permanent temporary Don’t know Total

advantage 81,4% 89,0% 77,5% 81,6% 73,4% 80,5% 74,4% 76,0%

inconvenient 2,0% 0,0% 1,2% 1,5% 4,7% 2,4% 3,7% 3,5%

without importance 10,5% 9,2% 9,2% 1,0% 15,6% 9,8% 13,4% 12,7%

Don’t know 6,1% 1,8% 12,1% 6,9% 6,3% 8,5% 8,5% 7,9%

Total 61,9% 14,7% 23,4% 100,0% 27,9% 36,2% 35,8% 100,0%

Are satisfied by returning to the country?

Yes 85,4% 60,6% 66,5% 77,4% 60,9% 19,5% 28,0% 34,2%

No 4,8% 15,6% 8,7% 7,3% 20,3% 65,9% 43,9% 45,2%

Indifferent 9,8% 23,9% 24,3% 15,3% 18,8% 14,6% 28,0% 20,6%

Total 62,0% 14,7% 23,3% 100,0% 28,1% 36,0% 36,0% 100,0%

How do you estimate your current life level related to the one in the migration country?

better 61,8% 34,9% 42,2% 53,4% 43,8% 15,9% 14,6% 23,3%

Indifferent 9,6% 25,7% 18,5% 14,1% 12,5% 12,2% 19,5% 14,9%

Less better 24,0% 28,4% 27,2% 25,5% 32,8% 64,6% 52,4% 51,3%

Don’t know 4,6% 11,0% 11,0% 7,1% 10,9% 8,5% 12,2% 10,5%

Total 62,1% 14,8% 23,2% 100,0% 28,1% 36,4% 35,5% 100,0%

TABLE 11: OUTPUT VARIABLES INFLUENCING THE RESPONSE VARIABLE Effects analysis

Effects DDL Khi 2 Pr > Khi 2

profils 10 31.7121 0.0004

Are you satisfied with the income in the origin country? 4 20.1340 0.0005

Do you search a job? 4 18.2819 0.0011

Country of origin 4 17.7434 0.0014

Are you not satisfied from the wage obtained in the origin

country? 2 9.8904 0.0071

From how many time do you return to the country? 4 13.8877 0.0077

Have you some difficulties with finding job in your country? 2 8.6841 0.0130

What the experience abroad represent for you 6 16.1081 0.0132

Have you benefit from help when you returned to country? 2 7.1437 0.0281

How do you estimate your current life level related to the

one in the migration country? 6 12.6031 0.0498

Time lived abroad 4 8.1149 0.0875

Have you some difficulties with finding habitation in your

country? 2 4.7076 0.0950

SEARCH WP03/24

TABLE 12: ANALYSIS OF MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES AND RISK

Paramètre q_o2 DDL Estimation

Standard

error

Khi 2

Wald Pr > Khi 2 Estimation 95% confidence

Intercept temporary 1 -1.7195 1.4563 1.3943 0.2377

Intercept Don’t know 1 -1.3688 1.2343 1.2297 0.2675

country Morocco vs Algeria temporary 1 0.7375 0.3117 5.5992 0.0180 2.091 1.135 3.851

country Morocco vs Algeria Don’t know 1 0.7238 0.2679 7.2978 0.0069 2.062 1.220 3.487

country Tunisia vs Algeria temporary 1 1.0404 0.2917 12.7174 0.0004 2.830 1.598 5.013

country Tunisia vs Algeria Don’t know 1 0.3862 0.2645 2.1316 0.1443 1.471 0.876 2.471

sej_PPI sej_PPI 30 ans et + vs [0-9ans[ temporary 1 0.2880 0.3990 0.5208 0.4705 1.334 0.610 2.915

sej_PPI sej_PPI 30 ans et + vs [0-9ans[ Don’t know 1 0.4531 0.3535 1.6430 0.1999 1.573 0.787 3.145

sej_PPI sej_PPI [10-29ans[ vs [0-9ans[ temporary 1 -0.5235 0.2869 3.3302 0.0680 0.592 0.338 1.040

sej_PPI sej_PPI [10-29ans[ vs [0-9ans[ Don’t know 1 0.1238 0.2472 0.2508 0.6165 1.132 0.697 1.837

Profil Profil Ech_migr vs Re_etu temporary 1 -0.4720 0.5766 0.6701 0.4130 0.624 0.201 1.931

Profil Profil Ech_migr vs Re_etu Don’t know 1 0.1792 0.4627 0.1500 0.6986 1.196 0.483 2.963

Profil Profil Inv_PO vs Re_etu temporary 1 0.6606 0.5814 1.2911 0.2558 1.936 0.619 6.050

Profil Profil Inv_PO vs Re_etu Don’t know 1 0.7947 0.5012 2.5137 0.1129 2.214 0.829 5.912

Profil Profil Pref_P_O vs Re_etu temporary 1 -0.2429 0.5919 0.1683 0.6816 0.784 0.246 2.502

Profil Profil Pref_P_O vs Re_etu Don’t know 1 -0.3450 0.5038 0.4688 0.4935 0.708 0.264 1.901

Profil Profil Ret_forc vs Re_etu temporary 1 0.9955 0.5487 3.2916 0.0696 2.706 0.923 7.932

Profil Profil Ret_forc vs Re_etu Don’t know 1 0.9185 0.4806 3.6520 0.0560 2.506 0.977 6.427

Profil Profil temp_Aut vs Re_etu temporary 1 -0.3590 0.6385 0.3162 0.5739 0.698 0.200 2.441

Profil Profil temp_Aut vs Re_etu Don’t know 1 -0.2528 0.5560 0.2068 0.6493 0.777 0.261 2.309

q_r7 q_r7 searching for job vs not searching for job temporary 1 -2.5163 0.8325 9.1365 0.0025 0.081 0.016 0.413

q_r7 q_r7 searching for job vs not searching for job Don’t know 1 -0.5767 0.8043 0.5140 0.4734 0.562 0.116 2.718

q_r7 q_r7 not concerned by searching for job vs not

searching for job temporary 1 -1.8857 0.6750 7.8038 0.0052 0.152 0.040 0.570

SEARCH WP03/24

q_r7 q_r7 not concerned by searching for job vs not

searching for job Don’t know 1 -1.4818 0.6981 4.5055 0.0338 0.227 0.058 0.893

q_s1 q_s1 don’t know vs inconvenient temporary 1 0.9056 1.2390 0.5342 0.4648 2.473 0.218 28.046

q_s1 q_s1 don’t know vs inconvenient Don’t know 1 1.9124 0.9029 4.4861 0.0342 6.769 1.153 39.725

q_s1 q_s1 without importance vs inconvenient temporary 1 1.2054 1.1606 1.0787 0.2990 3.338 0.343 32.461

q_s1 q_s1 without importance vs inconvenient Don’t know 1 0.9228 0.8862 1.0842 0.2978 2.516 0.443 14.292

q_s1 q_s1 advantage vs inconvenient temporary 1 1.5383 1.1058 1.9352 0.1642 4.657 0.533 40.673

q_s1 q_s1 advantage vs inconvenient Don’t know 1 0.9055 0.8415 1.1577 0.2819 2.473 0.475 12.870

q_s2 q_s2 not satisfied from return vs Indifferent temporary 1 0.8540 0.4172 4.1905 0.0406 2.349 1.037 5.321

q_s2 q_s2 not satisfied from return vs Indifferent Don’t know 1 -0.3080 0.3902 0.6231 0.4299 0.735 0.342 1.579

q_s2 q_s2 satisfied from return vs Indifferent temporary 1 -0.5690 0.3408 2.7878 0.0950 0.566 0.290 1.104

q_s2 q_s2 satisfied from return vs Indifferent Don’t know 1 -0.6895 0.2808 6.0314 0.0141 0.502 0.289 0.870

q_s3a q_s3a difficulties with habitation vs no difficulties temporary 1 0.3459 0.3764 0.8445 0.3581 1.413 0.676 2.956

q_s3a q_s3a difficulties with habitation vs no difficulties Don’t know 1 0.6457 0.2977 4.7055 0.0301 1.907 1.064 3.418

q_s3d q_s3d difficulties with finding job vs no difficulties temporary 1 0.9970 0.3531 7.9708 0.0048 2.710 1.356 5.414

q_s3d q_s3d difficulties with finding job vs no difficulties Don’t know 1 0.2107 0.3374 0.3898 0.5324 1.235 0.637 2.392

q_s3e q_s3e difficulties with wage vs no difficulties temporary 1 -0.0194 0.3082 0.0040 0.9497 0.981 0.536 1.794

q_s3e q_s3e difficulties with wage vs no difficulties Don’t know 1 0.7421 0.2649 7.8463 0.0051 2.100 1.250 3.530

q_s4 q_s4 less better life vs better life temporary 1 0.0158 0.3288 0.0023 0.9616 1.016 0.533 1.935

q_s4 q_s4 less better life vs better life Don’t know 1 -0.1668 0.2829 0.3477 0.5554 0.846 0.486 1.474

q_s4 q_s4 don’t know vs better life temporary 1 0.3053 0.4695 0.4229 0.5155 1.357 0.541 3.406

q_s4 q_s4 don’t know vs better life Don’t know 1 0.2650 0.3918 0.4576 0.4988 1.303 0.605 2.809

q_s4 q_s4 the same life vs better life temporary 1 0.7694 0.3392 5.1439 0.0233 2.159 1.110 4.197

q_s4 q_s4 the same life vs better life Don’t know 1 0.8049 0.2933 7.5329 0.0061 2.236 1.259 3.973

q_s5 q_s5 helped in return vs not helped temporary 1 -1.1266 0.5247 4.6103 0.0318 0.324 0.116 0.906

q_s5 q_s5 helped in return vs not helped Don’t know 1 -0.8137 0.4122 3.8963 0.0484 0.443 0.198 0.994

Date of return [0-2 ans[ vs [5-10 ans[ temporary 1 0.6872 0.2882 5.6864 0.0171 1.988 1.130 3.498

Date of return [0-2 ans[ vs [5-10 ans[ Don’t know 1 0.8202 0.2499 10.7682 0.0010 2.271 1.391 3.706

SEARCH WP03/24

Date of return [3-5 ans[ vs [5-10 ans[ temporary 1 0.3891 0.2984 1.7000 0.1923 1.476 0.822 2.649

Date of return [3-5 ans[ vs [5-10 ans[ Don’t know 1 0.6706 0.2593 6.6884 0.0097 1.955 1.176 3.251

SEARCH WP03/24

X. Bibliography

CASSARINO J.pierre. 2004 «Theorising Return Migration: The Conceptual Approach to Return Migrants Revisited » In International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS) Vol.6, No 2, pp. 253-279. BOUOIYOUR Jamal 2006 « Migration, diaspora et développement humain ». In Cinquantenaire de l’indépendance du Maroc, rapport sur le développement humain, Royaume du Maroc, pp. 457-483. BOUSSETTA Mohamed 2001 «Exode des compétences : déterminants et impact sur le développement. » in la migration Sud-Nord : La problématique de l’Exode des Compétences, Association Marocaine d’Eudes et de Recherches sur les Migrations, pp165-172. Da Vanzo Julie "Differences between return and Non return Migration : An Econometric Analysis" International Migration Review. Vol.10 N°1, 1976 PP13-27. DOCQUIER Fréderic et HILEL Rapoport 1998 «Croissance, redistribution et inégalités dans un modèle de fuite des cerveaux». Revue économique, vol 50 N°3, développements récents de l’analyse économique (XLVIIe congrès annuel de l'Association française de science économique 1998 (May, 1999)), pp. 499-510. DOCQUIER Fréderic et HILEL Rapoport 2005 «Migration du travail qualifié et formation de capital humain dans les pays en développement : un modèle stylisé et une revue de la littérature récente» La Documentation française -Economie internationale pp 5-26. DOCQUIER Fréderic 2007 «Fuite des cerveaux et inégalités entre pays ». Revue d’économie du développement. N°23 pp 49-88. DOCQUIER Fréderic et HILEL Rapoport 2007. «L’immigration qualifiée, remède miracle aux problèmes économiques européens?» Université de Boeck- Reflets et perspectives de la vie économique Tome XLVI, pp 95-111. DOCQUIER Fréderic, LOWELL Lindsay, MARFOUK Abdeslam December 2007 «A Gendered Assessment of the Brain Drain». Discussion Paper N° 3235 pp 1-35. KHACHANI Mohamed 2010 « la migration des personnes hautement qualifiées le cas du Maroc ». CARIM Notes d’analyse et de synthèse, 2010/37 pp. 1-23.

GMELCH George "Return Migration" Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 9 (1980), pp.

135-159.

Ministère Chargé de la Communauté Marocaine Résidente à l’Etranger « Elaboration d’une stratégie de renforcement des politiques, des mécanismes et des instruments relatifs à la mobilisation de l’épargne et de l’investissement des MRE au profit de

SEARCH WP03/24

l’économie nationale et les moyens de réduction des coûts de transferts des fonds ». Rapport intégral. Janvier 2010. Organisation Mondiale pour les Migrations et le Ministère Chargé de la Communauté Marocaine Résidente à l’Etranger « Étude sur la contribution des Marocains Résidant à l’Étranger au développement économique et social du Maroc » Juin 2009.

OCDE 2008. « Les migrations de retour : un nouveau regard » In Perspectives des migrations internationales, pp.181-246

Oladele O. Arowolo "Return Migration and the Problem of Reintegration" International Migration Vol. 38 (5) 2000

STARK Oded & FAN Simon 2007 «the brain drain, ‘educated unemployment’, human capital formation, and economic betterment» In Economics of Transition Volume 15(4), pp 629-660.